On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 21:00, David Greene <gree...@obbligato.org> wrote: > Can you elaborate? I'm talking about very small tests targeted to > generate a specific instruction or small number of instructions. > Vectorization isn't the best example. Something like verifying FMA > generation is a better example.
To check that instructions are generated from source, a two-step test is the best approach: - Verify that Clang emits different IR for different options, or the right IR for a new functionality - Verify that the affected targets (or at least two of the main ones) can take that IR and generate the right asm Clang can emit LLVM IR for any target, but you don't necessarily need to build the back-ends. If you want to do the test in Clang all the way to asm, you need to make sure the back-end is built. Clang is not always build with all back-ends, possibly even none. To do that in the back-end, you'd have to rely on Clang being built, which is not always true. Hacking our test infrastructure to test different things when a combination of components is built, especially after they start to merge after being in a monorepo, will complicate tests and increase the likelihood that some tests will never be run by CI and bit rot. On the test-suite, you can guarantee that the whole toolchain is available: Front and back end of the compilers, assemblers (if necessary), linkers, libraries, etc. Writing a small source file per test, as you would in Clang/LLVM, running LIT and FileCheck, and *always* running it in the TS would be trivial. --renato _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
